Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:44, 2 March 2014

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Ruggero Santilli

Ruggero Santilli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This WP:FRINGEBLP survived a deletion discussion last decade, but I'm not sure the guy is all that notable. Do we have independent sources for this article? Can we clear out some of the cruft?

jps (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how anything has changed since the last discussion. Once notable, always notable is even mentioned in there. There are 2-3 MSM citations covering the guy referenced in the article alone. Seems like a notable crank. 0x0077BE 22:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We may be in an era where Misplaced Pages requires more than just two newspaper articles and a videoblog on the CNN Money site to qualify as serious independent notice. The bigger issue, of course, is that the majority of the article is serving as a soapbox. Some reference to primary sources from Santilli is fine and to be expected, but the vast majority of the content is either referenced to such material or simply regurgitating his CV. jps (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that notability has become more strict since 2007? I'm not sure I agree. No one's saying that those are the only things that establish his notability, I just said they were the only ones in the article. I really don't think that this article is going anywhere. Regarding your second point, I took a quick look and it seems like that can be remedied either by adding balance to the relevant sections or, where appropriate, argue for cutting back some sections which give undue weight to his theories. I didn't look too carefully, but I thought that it was clear enough that he's a crank and that his crazy ideas don't have their own wikipedia pages for a good reason. I don't think it would be difficult to reword the paragraphs in such a way that the information about what he believes is still there but put into perspective by contrasting it with the mainstream scientific view. 0x0077BE 23:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It might be easy enough to do that, but I'm sorta at a loss since I'm not as familiar with this guy as some of the others who seem to remember him from the media splashes he made from time-to-time. I would appreciate seeing what a better article might look like. Right now, the "external" notability of this person is drowned out by a lot of the noise. jps (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've gone in and deleted some of the more poorly sourced information. There is a lot of self-referential material in there. He's by far the most frequently cited source but, at the very least, his conflict with other researchers, lawsuits and bizarrely antisemetic claims of conspiracy have attracted referenced outside attention enough to make him notable. Better sources needed for a lot of things. Simonm223 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikiversity

Is Wikiversity subject to the same editorial policies as Misplaced Pages? Some UFO stuff as well as Paranormal stuff appears to be growing there (the latter proclaiming that "Edgar Cayce is probably the most effective psychic that has lived in the last 100 years.") - LuckyLouie (talk)

It's a bit of a haven for fringe stuff - people get sent there whose material is unacceptable here. "Instructional and study guides that make use of original research are allowed on Wikiversity. Wikibooks also allows instructional guides, but that resource doesn't allow original research." "Wikiversity is the place for original research, including primary or secondary research. This includes interpreting primary sources, forming ideas, or taking observations. Ethical guidelines must adhere, see Wikiversity:Research ethics. Pages with original research should be marked with the original research or research project templates." So I suspect there is a lot of rubbish there. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

See this on Atlantis, it starts "This article is about whether Atlantis existed and the possible locations of Atlantis. 10,000 years BC water levels were lower than they were today. The legend of Atlantis was in existence around 9600 B.C. before it was claimed to fall into the sea. Ancient Greece was not in existence around this time, so accounts of Greece interacting with Atlantis may be fictional, but based on a real account of Atlantis." Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And then there's Astrosociology... LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The sociology of outer space isn't fringe. There's lots to say about how and why people go into space, what they expect to find there, how space travel fits with other social phenomena. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The number of arguments pleading for academic acceptance of astrosociology that turn up in search results must have thrown me. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikiversity is the home of the fringe. Compare and contrast Breast enlargement supplements and . Second Quantization (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikiversity.org/Controversies_in_Science/Water_fluoridation#Low_IQ_.26_Cancer "There is a proven negative effect of fluoride which affects the body when ingested. It ranges from cancer to the lowering of the IQ, mostly in children. " - What the fuck is this shit? The source is Alex Jones!!!! Adam Cuerden 19:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Does Wikiversity have any policy/guidelines related to fringe and/or sourcing? Or is it basically just a massive groupthink blog? Ravensfire (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It has fairly minimal policies, but and do set out some minimal standards. Adam Cuerden 20:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Basically, as far as I've seen, it's anything goes. The site isn't very active either. Considering how terrible the content is, long may that continue. Second Quantization (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Constructal Law

Constructal law - comes across as pseudo-science pushed by one academic, but perhaps not. The talk page has a couple important questions that should be answered and yet haven't been in nearly a year, which rings alarm bells to me. Also, one of its proponents, an editor "Mr env" User:Mre env seems to be pushing it in many inappropriate places, like the advocates of other pseudo-sciences do, where links to the article are added to likely irrelevant pages. The editor also seems to push flattering references to works by the academic who "discovered" constructal law, Adrian Bejan, making me think there might be some biased relationship between the editor and the academic. Considering the probably dubious nature of the topic and the somewhat insidious way references are being pushed into various topics by someone who might have a conflict of interest, hopefully someone can review this and figure out what to do. 38.65.195.5 (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Reading the cited paper, it smacks of trying to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which squarely puts it into fringe territory. 38.65.195.5 (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you put it up for deletion. Also Adrian Bejan doesn’t look notable either. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Adrian Bejan is definitely notable; I have no opinion on Constructal law right now though. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggest against AfD as it appears to be a notable WP:FRINGE topic. But I am listing on the WP:NPOV noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting a sense that there are two parts to this theory: the perhaps reasonable side that there may be a better way of describing flows in natural systems, and the other that puts its importance as being as great as that of the laws of thermodynamics (Constructal Law, really?). It seems the papers that are cited in the article that aren't written by Adrian Bejan are part of the former group, but most of the Constructal Law page and especially the parts that cite Bejan are very much of the latter. I imagine that would fall under NPOV stuff - especially since after some digging, it seems our editor Mre env was one of Bejan's collaborators. Anyway, as a novice to editing wikipedia, I'm not really sure what would meet criteria for being notable, but this does not strike me as such, since the web presence seems to be a couple of papers and a bit of press that got hoodwinked into reporting it. 38.65.195.5 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And it should really not be linked to by pages such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics, maxwell's demon, arrow of time, even the logistic function and diminishing returns. Is there any way to prevent that? 38.65.195.5 (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment of the NPOV issue. The only way to deal with inappropriate linking is to find the links where they exist and remove them. Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help. I wouldn't have known where to begin with this process. I'll remove the links where I find them. Also, perhaps the title should be changed back to Constructal Theory? It was changed to law by Mre env, if I recall correctly from the edit comments, because he had a conversation with Bejan who claimed it was worthy of that status. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. 38.65.195.5 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Do secondary sources call it Constructural Theory or Constructural Law? Because we should go with what it is called by secondary sources if possible. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just going through the cited sources in the article, it's not very clear. Some articles call it a theory, some call it a law. Even some of Bejan's recent articles call it a theory while earlier ones call it a law. I would think those are primary sources anyway. I'm unaware of any secondary sources, which is why I'm still doubtful of notability. Still, the title isn't the source of the problems. 38.65.195.5 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Secondary source is anything about this theory / law written by somebody who wasn't instrumental in codifying it. Including supports or critiques of Bejan's work especially. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find anything that I would consider to be a good secondary source. That might be my own failing though. 38.65.195.5 (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you review the references currently on the article? Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Most of the references were authored by Bejan. Of the few that remained, I went through the ones that mentioned constructal somewhere in the title, written by only a handful of authors, and they were still divided. I got a strong sniff of fringe from those too (some seemed alright though, the ones relating to engineering problems mainly, as I described earlier). I'm not particularly wedded to it being changed to constructal theory anyway, but the more I look into it, the more I question its notability. 38.65.195.5 (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Remember that something can be fringey and still be notable as long as WP:DUE applies. If it is notable among fringe theorists then we present it that way. I'm going to suggest based on what you're saying that changing from Law to Theory might work well within the boundaries of WP:NPOV as this doesn't seem to describe what would be recognized as a set of actual physical laws. Simonm223 (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That was my thought on the law/theory issue. While there isn't really a rigorous definition of what a law is, I don't think anyone outside of this fringe group would consider it one as such. While I don't know all of the rules, I wasn't saying it was not notable because it was a fringe topic, but rather because I can only find a handful of people even talking about it. Seriously though, I don't have the experience to judge this, so I defer to you and anyone else with more knowledge on this matter. 38.65.195.5 (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Speciesism?

Is speciesism too fringe to be put in the "See also" section of Animal husbandry? -- Jeandré, 2014-02-19t12:18z

I don't think it's fringe in the way we define it here. It's a political concept. I doubt whether it should be a See also for Animal husbandry, though. The juxtaposition implies a political statement: that animal husbandry is speciesist. Which some people would argue, but See also isn't the right way to introduce the idea. You might want to discuss on the talk page whether a section on farm animal welfare could be included. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a concept on the fringes of political thought and I think should be treated similarly to fringe theories. Remember that WP:FTN is a guideline for detailing how to follow WP:NPOV,WP:OR,WP:RS and WP:GNG etc. The same reasoning about fringe scientific views can be applied to all areas, and the WP:FRINGE article is deliberately vague (using scholarship instead of science etc). WP:ONEWAY should apply. A minor (in terms of relation to the article) and fringe political concept shouldn't be given undue prominence. Second Quantization (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Second Quantization and Itsmejudith. FYI, I was the person who recommended that this user take the issue here. The talk page discussion has already begun at Talk:Animal_husbandry#Speciesism., but it is just between the two of us, and the article appears to have few watchers who want to weigh in, so to break the logjam and avoid endless tl;dr debate on an article that isn't on my A-list of places where I am working on content at the moment, I guess my take is that I'd like this user to provide some sources to indicate the relevance to the topic and then if those sources exist, we can discuss if there is an appropriate place for them in the article. I don't think it's relevant, it is an animal rights concept that appears to be on the fringes of the political spectrum, even by animal rights standards, and I suppose it's an open question if there is a scientific element to claims of speciesism. So have at it, folks. Montanabw 00:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Gray (writer)

Anyone ever hear of this Ron Wyatt and New World Order conspiracy theories advocate? Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look notable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend taking both Wyatt and Gray to AFD, as I do not see how either pass notability. The Wyatt page in particular has a great deal of primary sources. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Created an AfD for Gray. Ambivalent toward Wyatt - he's borderline but not enough so for me to pull the trigger on an AfD. Find it here. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gray (writer) Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ezourvedam

Fringe article about a forged document, but the article also seems to be putting forth the idea that the story of Adam and Eve comes from the Hindu religion, eg that "Adimo" can be found in the Rigveda and that " Adimo is a character of a folk tale, which was written by Ramutsariar, about 2,000 of years before Bible". Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Loving the journalistic "French philosopher Voltaire, who has been criticised...". Itsmejudith (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm in a grumpy mood and am tempted to section blank the Adimo section. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just so you guys know there is a slight extenuating circumstance. Some other editors on the article are trying to mentor the one who is responsible for the majority of edits. I'm still keeping an eye on it but think a light touch might be appropriate in light of the ongoing development of the editor. Simonm223 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nick Pelling

Nick Pelling may or may not be notable as a computer gaming guy. He's also a Voynich Manuscript guy. The AFD is turning into a bit a mess, including an appearance by Mr. Pelling himself. I'm still forming an opinionon the AFD but it could use attention from others, in any case. Mangoe (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks notable as a computer gaming guy (just barely) but I removed the Voynich stuff. There are notable scholars for that book. He doesn't look like one of them.Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Alkaline diet

Good article nominee, and I'm actually leaning towards passing it, but this is one of those cases where there's so much quackery around the subject that we need to get things right the first time. Could everyone please have a look, make any appropriate tweaks, and tell me if you see any major problems that I might be missing?

Cheers!

Adam Cuerden 15:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Better than most fringe stuff that comes our way. I'm not an expert on medical quackery specifically - but it passes the sniff test from my end. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Article looks good in terms of contextualisation. I see Jmh649 and Yobol have been doing the recent editing (with Yobol doing the nom) which is generally a safe bet that it's WP:NPOV. Second Quantization (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Think we could slightly improve the lead, but once that's done, I'm going to promote it. Adam Cuerden 18:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

fringe medicine?

anyone familiar with

• Barry Gusterson and
• Breakthrough Breast Cancer

The one has serious autobiography problems, and I havent yet checked out the other, but anything calling itself "Breakthrough" cancer research screams of Fringe medicine. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Bit harsh, Mr. TRiPOD dontcha think? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The second one is just a cancer research charity; I can't see anything wrong with it. Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem fringe to me or anything, but it definitely reads like ad copy and needs to be made NPOV. 0x0077BE 17:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Tagged the primary sources and copyedited the first, it still needs a real source. Toned down the ad copy on the second. Neither is fringe. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the latter isn't WP:FRINGE, although the title could easily raise suspicions for somebody used to working on such articles... bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Grassman

Is there any non-fringe sources to demonstrate notability for this wheatgrass-eating Bigfoot knock-off? It's also infecting our Akron, Ohio article, cited to something called the "Bigfoot Research Organization." - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't look particularly notable. At least not with the current refs - a blog and a book in Swedish. Simonm223 (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The only source that comes close to being independent and objective is a 1997 issue of Backpacker Magazine: . - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If the History Channel Monster Investigations thing is true, that might an indication that it's a more widely covered mythical creature thing and might be notable, in which case it just needs expansion and cleanup. We won't find any reliable sources claiming that it exists, but that's true of any cryptid. 0x0077BE 21:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Where the only substantial coverage of a topic is from dubious sources, I prefer deletion, because it's impossible for us to have a neutral article (unless we resort to some kind of synthesis about how it can't be true/real because reliable sources say that other similar things can't be true/real). bobrayner (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm a habitual Special:Random visitor, so I prefer there to be stub articles that can be improved by people who stumble across it randomly - which is to say that I prefer to see articles on notable subject stripped down to the core set of sourced statements and built-up by curious people who find the article but find it lacking.

In this specific case, the content doesn't look horrible - if you'll notice in the article, the bigfoot research sites are cited for claims about why Grassman is unlikely to exist and is probably about 80% true (it's true, but there's also a burden of proof issue, etc). The appearance section needs to be fundamentally rewritten and should probably be removed until sources are found - since it's written in an in-universe way and it's not sourced at all. The "Investigations" section goes a long way towards establishing notability and just needs to be cleaned up a bit and sourced. Definitely not the worst fringe thing I've ever seen. 0x0077BE 00:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh heck no. Not by a long shot. Simonm223 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are objecting to. The notability? If it's true that it's been the subject of 3 different television documentaries, it definitely feels a lot more notable than a lot of the "Latvian Cricket Player" articles I've seen. I mean, maybe cryptids have different standards of notability. Are you objecting to the idea that it's not horrible? I think it looks a lot better with the "Appearance" section cut out, again, better than many fringe topics I've seen. 0x0077BE 02:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The History channel is generally full of nonsense. I don't think featuring on that is an indicator of much. Discovery channel is similarly shoddy. If the sources don't exist to discuss it, then it hasn't met WP:FRINGE#Notability. Second Quantization (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've cleaned it up. No matter that they call them "investigations", I think all can agree that the TV shows are entertainment, and so should be placed in the context of popular culture.- LuckyLouie (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Confusion

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pierre-Marie Robitaille.

Input into this discussion would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems just over the line on WP:PROF also highly amusing, which isn't a justification for a Keep statement but remains deeply personally satisfying. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel like "amusing" is probably a good reason to delete, actually, considering the problematic aspects of WP:BLP. jps (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Transliminality

A paranormal concept of Michael Thalbourne. All references are either primary/unreliable (from Thalbourne) in parapsychology journals or in fringe paranormal books. I can't find any reliable references for this concept apart from one mention of it in a psychology book . I think a redirect to Thalbourne would be suitable. An entire article to this fringe concept seems unnecessary as there are not enough reliable sources on the subject matter. Goblin Face (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - a redirect to Thalbourne would seem appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Břetislav Kafka

Never heard of this guy before, can't find any reliable references. As it stands the only references that mention him are dubious parapsychology links like Michael Talbot of the "hologram" fame or Raymond Moody. I think afd would be suitable here.

The same thing is happening with this guy Zdeněk Rejdák. It's either self-published sources, unreliable parapsychology journals or fringe writers like Michael Talbot being cited. Goblin Face (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

When I read these articles I get the impression Misplaced Pages is trying to sell me on how important these people and their theories are/were. Not good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Borderline. An AfD might or might not fly for Rejdák but the article definitely needs improvement. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't find any reliable sources for either Kafka or Rejdák. I think it's worthwhile submitting them for AfD. Goblin Face (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Břetislav Kafka Goblin Face (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Chip Coffey

Seems to be a rather unknown psychic. Only references I can find are his own website, paranormal blogs or youtube. Goblin Face (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Coffey is at the very least a notable fraud. He's very well known within the Psychic fandom. He's also been the target of a few exposes in the skeptical press. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Any specific sources? I trawled through google scholar and books but couldn't see anything, Second Quantization (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a list of RSes provided in the second AfD. They'd be a good place to start.Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources posted at that AfD which I looked at were credulous and provided no analysis to work from. I'm generally in favour of keeping articles where the critical reporting exists (e.g Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Natural breast enhancement), but it needs to exist and be shown, Second Quantization (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

My copies of Skeptic magazine are all boxed up at the bottom of a closet right now but I think I recall reading about him too. It's somewhere to start. :) But the guy is well known... in those circles. That's how he ended up coming to the attention of mainstream papers such as the Winnipeg Free Press. Just remember to contextualize (without WP:SYNTH of course) as best you can the sources you have. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Check this link to Skeptic.com ] Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

See Joe Nickell's opinion (which for some reason is absent in the present article). - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't get access to that book. What is Nickell's opinion - I am guessing he only mentions Coffey in brief? Goblin Face (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Try flushing your browser or open with a different browser. It's a chapter of The Science of Ghosts: Searching for Spirits of the Dead, by Joe Nickell called "Chip Coffey and Paranormal State" in which he basically says Coffey was caught in fraud, and refers to a Miami Herald story on Coffey that Nickell contributed his critique of the subject to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not got access to it. I think it's because I am outside of America. If you have access to the source you should add it into the article and include mention of his fraud. If reliable references can be found it would be worth keeping, I noticed a list has been compiled on the afd. I have looked for sources and couldn't find any but perhaps I have been slacking on this one lol. Goblin Face (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Simonm223. I will hold you and Sgerbic personally responsible for bringing this article up to scratch since you insist on it being kept despite the absence of any sources. Every Afd the same poor sources are mentioned at AfD, but no improvements are made based on actually reliable sources. Second Quantization (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Just as long as you keep WP:TIND in mind. This is not high up my priority list and the article does no harm existing. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Peter Fiebag

This is a strange article, no references at all and a quick look and I can't find anything reliable. It says he worked at the University of Gottingen but I can't find any reliable references for this. Only one book reference I can see mentions him Von Daniken lol.. not exactly known for his reliability. He described Fiebag as a secondary school teacher. I think this could meet the criteria of being a quick delete. Goblin Face (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peter Fiebag Goblin Face (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Parapsychology gone?

It's being used as a main source on a whole lot of fringe theory articles but its web presence seems just plain gone. Is this publication still extant? Here's its link: ] Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The wayback machine shows it going down sometime in 2012. Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There's still time to subscribe! - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny considering they haven't bothered publishing an issue since 2009! Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You may have gotten your urls mixed up. This one shows a Spring 2013 issue.

Yeah, wayback machine done me wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Water vein

This is an article related to dowsing but I can't find a single reliable reference for what it is supposed to be. Might be worth redirecting it to this article Earth radiation which I will try to improve. A similar article here Bovis scale. Any thoughts about what to do with these? Goblin Face (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I redirected it to Dowsing. It only had two incoming links, one of which is Earth radiation, so I wanted to avoid redirecting back to that. Feel free to pick a better target, though... bobrayner (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the other incoming link is from Wawel Chakra. Quite an entertaining article. bobrayner (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Wawel Chakra should be deleted. A fun article but mostly original research. Goblin Face (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Astronaut Creation Theory

This was created in December, 2013. It obviously slipped under the radar. There's some hilarious stuff in there, a lot of original research by the looks of it. Alfred Russel Wallace as a genetic argument for influence on ancient aliens? Goblin Face (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ancient Astronaut Creation Theory. jps (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Patrick Harpur

Having difficulty finding reliable references for this author. He seems to have written some fringe books in the vein of John Keel, but I can't find any book reviews. Goblin Face (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

With zero reliable sources we're looking at probable AfD material unless WP:AUTHOR notability criteria can be met. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have found a slew of reliable sources here; definitely notable. The relevant section if you don't have access to Highbeam are the references used for the piece:

BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL SOURCES:

Reginal, Robert, Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature, 1975-1991, Thomson Gale (Detroit, MI), 1992.

Bestsellers, April, 1985, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 11.

Booklist, January 1, 2003, Donna Seaman, review of The Philosopher's Secret Fire: A History of the Imagination, p. 812.

Books, February, 1990, review of Mercurius; or, The Marriage of Heaven and Earth, p. 16.

Books & Bookmen, March, 1985, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 29; February, 1986, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 75; July, 1986, review of The Rapture, p. 30.

British Book News, May, 1985, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 299; October, 1987, review of The Rapture, p. 703.

Folklore, 1996, review of Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld, p. 121.

Guardian (London), April 13, 2002, Vera Rule, review of The Philosopher's Secret Fire: A History of the Imagination, p. 13.

Kirkus Reviews, March 1, 1985, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 190.

Library Journal, November 15, 2002, Eloise R. Hitchcock, review of The Philosopher's Secret Fire: A History of the Imagination, p. 79.

Los Angeles Times, May 26, 1985, Huston Horn, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 9.

National Catholic Reporter, October 11, 1985, Lawrence S. Cunningham, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 12.

New Statesman and Society, November 25, 1994, David V. Barrett, review of Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld, p. 44.

Observer (London), June 8, 1986, review of The Rapture, p. 25; February 5, 1995, review of Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld, p. 26.

Publishers Weekly, February 8, 1985, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 69.

Punch, July 2, 1986, review of The Rapture, p. 46.

Sunday Times (London), January 7, 1996, review of Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld, p. 10.

Times Literary Supplement, September 16, 1994, Nigel Barley, review of Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld, p. 32. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Anomalous cognition

This article has got some history, check the talk page. Most editors have agreed it should be redirected but it never was. I suggest a redirect to parapsychology. Goblin Face (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered redirecting it to extrasensory perception? The skeptic’s dictionary seems to be suggesting that they are synonymous. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think redirecting to ESP makes more sense. Objections? jps (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of redirecting it to Extrasensory Perception. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Extrasensory perception does not mention the term "anomalous cognition" so there is no basis for that in the article. Do you have a source that says that they are the same thing, or do you want to merge content? Wbm1058 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The source was the skeptic’s dictionary’s entry on anomalous cognition ]. Apparently “anomalous cognition” was an expression made up by SAIC to refer to ESP in the same way that “macroscopic random mechanical cascade” was an expression made up by PEAR to refer to a game of plinko. The creation of neologisms seems to be a common theme in parapsychology. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

See euphemism treadmill. jps (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumari Kandam

Kumari Kandam has been heavily revised recently, and now contains original research, heavy use of someone named K.Appadurai, statements like "is probable" with no source, etc. See the talk page discussion. I must admit I haven't looked at this for a few days. I note for instance a new Satellite image claimed to resemble Mt Meru but with apparently no source. Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

My word but this is a messed up article. It doesn't follow Misplaced Pages style, it's FULL of WP:SYNTH and rides roughshod over WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policy. I'm making a few edits, but additional eyes would be helpful. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Rosen Method Bodywork

A tiny article, needs eyes (and, if possible, expansion!) Alexbrn 21:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

(add) In fact, after a good hunt around, this topic does not seem to receive any good coverage outside the world of Rosen/bodywork publications (which are currently being used in the article, wrongly IMHO). Even Quackwatch just gives it a passing mention. Wondering if it should be AfD'd. Alexbrn 10:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My inclusionist tendencies say no. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

But can we write a neutral article without good sources? What we've got now isn't neutral/reliable since we're sourcing claims of medical benefit to fringe sources. Alexbrn 14:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We have the quackwatch article though so we can, as per WP:FRINGE note the claims of the less reliable sources and then follow up with Quackwatch says.... Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should be including any dubious medical claims since it's "vital" (WP:RS/MC) that Misplaced Pages not contain them, even if contradicted by Quackwatch ... and in this case Quackwatch is rather vague and doesn't address the claims that have been made. Alexbrn 14:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's vital that wikipedia not report dubious medical claims as if they were true (in-universe explanation) however noting the existence of dubious medical claims falls within the boundaries of WP:FRINGE Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, if we can contextualize (typically: "although claims are made that x is an effective treatment for y, research has found no evidence to support this"). My concern is we lack the RS for a proper context here. Alexbrn 15:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Preemptive action regarding Global warming pause

Nothing particularly wrong at the moment, though the article could use some style work, but there's been a low level debate going on over at global warming including links to this article added and removed - so it might be a good idea to keep eyes here unless somebody decides to try and slip something in the back-door. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Right now it has POV problems and is not an proper encyclopedic treatment of a fringe view. Even our articles on Holocaust denial and Vaccine controversies do not say in Misplaced Pages's voice that those theories are wrong. We simply report what the sources say and attribute it to those same sources.

Consider the difference between this...

"Holocaust denial is widely viewed as failing to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence, principles that mainstream historians (as well as scholars in other fields) regard as basic to rational inquiry."

...and this...

"The argument also overlooks that other means of measuring global warming exist besides land surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years at all. In addition, some evidence suggests that the apparent 'lack of warming' over the past 15 years is just an artifact of insufficient coverage of certain parts of the globe in calculating global temperatures."

Notice that the first quote doesn't say, in Misplaced Pages's voice, that holocaust denial fails to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence? Of course we all know that it does fail to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence, but the article simply reports what the sources (in this case Online Dimensions, a Journal of Holocaust Studies) say.

If you are concerned with someone "slipping something in the back-door", making the article encyclopedic and non-POV makes it harder to do that, because it makes it harder to introduce anything not directly supported by a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

All I was planning on doing was getting it on some watch lists. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That being said - you'll note I mentioned some style issues. This is more a watch notice than anything else for me but if you want to take on making improvements be my guest. Simonm223 (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Misplaced Pages's voice versus in-text attribution, WP:ITA does say, "simple facts – "humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor" – are best left stated simply as facts rather than recast as opinions". There really are 'other means of measuring global warming'. --Nigelj (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to stop personifying things. Arguments do not "overlook" things. People making the arguments do. Whether they are "overlooking" the simple fact that there are other means of measuring global warming, whether they are deliberately obfuscating the truth, or whether they are too ignorant to know anything at all is not possible to say and certainly can't be easily sourced. jps (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Nigelj: I really don't see how critiquing an argument is a simple statement of fact, though. Even if the argument is obviously wrong on its face. 0x0077BE 23:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Keep in mind that there are other ways of counting how many Jews were killed in WWII as well. Valid ways that from actual historians that come up with similar but not identical numbers, and invalid ways that the holocaust deniers prefer. Does that mean that one could insert the phrase "The argument also overlooks that there are other means of measuring deaths" into Criticism of Holocaust denial#Six million without being instantly reverted? Misplaced Pages does not evaluate what an argument overlooks. We report what a reliable source says concerning the argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If mainstream climate scientists were similar to holocaust deniers, I would see your point. Which do you regard as the fringe view? --Nigelj (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This is bread and butter stuff for FTN and we shouldn't make heavy weather of it. Alongside any fringe theory we simply state the facts. Earth roughly spherical, millions not thousands of years old, homeopathic medicines pure water, perpetual motion not possibly except in a vacuum, humans evolved from ape-like ancestor, Atlantis an old Greek story. Keeping it simple is by far the best way to deal with accusations of POV. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Itsmejudith makes a good point. Let's keep it simple. bobrayner (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It occurs to me that a lot of this discussion on FTN is going to be hard to find for anyone coming to this article later. Should we move/mirror/transclude this discussion to the talk page over at Global warming pause? 0x0077BE 15:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a link c/o bobrayner currently IIRC (with thanks) but it wouldn't hurt to transclude this text - would be neighborly anyway. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ovilus redux

This device doesn't seem to meet any WP standards of notability and lack serious in depth coverage by reliable sources. Past discussions indicate that the only reason the article exists is due to a single editor's filibustering efforts. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Time to have the discussion in the right venue: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ovilus. jps (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Dmitry Volkhov

Having difficulty finding any reliable references for this psychic. Goblin Face (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

None found. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Volkhov - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

After-death communication

Should be deleted or redirected. There's no references for this. Any thoughts? Goblin Face (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - I redirected it to Mediumship Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

See also Hello From Heaven! by the same possible COI account. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a prickly situation because the ABC and Orlando Sentinel pieces exist - and do feature the book with the sort of credulous gee whiz soft-journalism that is so common for psychic stories. A weak case could be made that the book is notable. However considering the archive of the ABC article only exists on the youtube channel used by the authors to promote their book it is likely CoI went into the creation of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone with High Beam access could at least provide some NPOV balance and prevent the article from merely repeating the credulous promotional blurbs and an e-commerce link. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake needs eyes

Editor currently trying to soften language regarding general scientific consensus surrounding Morphic Resonance. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't usually call people trolls but this guy User:Tom Butler obviously is one. Have a look at his user page which claims issues of censorship on wikipedia. Having a look through his edits also reveals nothing productive. It seems his existence on Misplaced Pages is to stir up controversy about Sheldrake and skeptics. I believe this guy was topic banned from editing pseudoscience articles? This may be my own misunderstanding but I don't think he should be editing that page. Goblin Face (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

He's updated his talk page to "Out numbered by masked editors with way too much time on their hands and no social skills". Goblin Face (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

He's also attacking Misplaced Pages and promoting his fringe alternative website Goblin Face (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Tom's bullet proof. He isn't really a troll, he's been on that page for ages. He appears, for all intense and porpoises, to be a true believer acting In good faith. I don't understand him at all. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

People can do what they like on their own personal pages really. I'm not concerned about his accusations of a wikipedia cabal there. I just think that it'd be a good idea to keep an eye on the page itself until he relaxes a little - especially as the article is under a WP:1RR arbitration enforcement and has been an edit war zone in the past. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean Tom Butler? He's mostly harmless because he knows when to back down when he's losing. He was also warned at WP:ARBPSCI, so further concerns regarding him should be referred to WP:AE. jps (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith on his part before taking it to WP:AE but he's had his 1 revert for today so let's see what happens. But, yeah, I reviewed the latest arbitration enforcement already. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) He is certainly kicking a dead horse this morning. Perhaps he could be appeased by"The scientific community, except for 6 scientists (group footnote with citations to the 6 scientist who don't through you out of the window for wasting their time when you bring up Morphic Resonance), consider it pseudoscience"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

and maybe a WP:NPA warning about the fact that all editors are absolutely entitled to be completely anonymous behind their masks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Tom is generally not disruptive and stays within policy. However I was surprised to see this, from another party. I thought it might be humor...until I noted the numerous diffs being used to attack other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Tom Butler (talk · contribs) understands that the only reason he hasn't been topic banned from Rupert Sheldrake article as an WP:SPA is because he's voluntarily taking a permanent break from it. Also, read literally, the heading of this thread... Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Fringe proponent on the parapsychology talk-page not listening to a word anyone has said, citing the same old pseudoscience etc and ignoring scientific references on the topic. Now claiming people are "strawmanning" in his edit summaries. Seems to be using the talk-page like a forum instead of proposing anything productive. Is it worth just ignoring him? Goblin Face (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've given up. I tried engaging him on a document he provided that I hadn't seen before - an attempt to replicate Jahn's work - but he wouldn't hear a word I was saying regarding sample sizes, null hypotheses and the difference between statistical significance and proof. Fact is that anybody who holds up a study that was dismissed by PEAR for not supporting their hypothesis regarding PK as definitive proof is probably a true believer. Ignore him until he either: A) provides new material from non-fringe sources to review for WP:RS or B) actually starts trying to do his proposed substantial revamp. Frankly I doubt we'll see that - he knows he can use a talk page to post his "counter-argument" in a way that wouldn't get past WP:RS rules in the articlespace. Simonm223 (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

He keeps leaving abusive comments on my talk page from his IP address 69.14.156.143. Goblin Face (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If he is leaving abusive comments on your talk page repeatedly you could take it to the Administrator's noticeboard / incidents. I... think that's the correct venue for that sort of behaviour. But (assuming you haven't already done so) it'd be best for you to ask him to stop first. Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GF: I only left those comments because you wouldn't stop repeating yourself over and over again after I acknowledged that I had listened to those sources. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Simon: Oh, my goodness. The sample sizes are fine, the null hypothesis had good reason to be rejected, and the statistical significance of the results cannot be explained away in the form you wanted to. I am sorry. I also caught you quote-mining several times. I'll ignore you if you want me to, but you're not giving me anything to work with. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Robert G. Jahn

Back in August the Jahn article got a huge shot of the fringe theory stuff from the Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab article. The article is currently effectively a glowing endorsement of his parapsychological work. I was scanning it in light of the renewed interest in parapsychologists I've seen through my watchlist and found out. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove a bunch of the NPOV content but if there is anyone else who wants to reinsert something that should be in there (in case I cut too much), or if there is anyone who can find better sources for information please lend a hand. Simonm223 (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I moved that stuff across as part of the cleanup of the PEAR page, which had been repeated POV-spammed by a COI editor. Whatever about its quality, which I think is rather dubious at best, it seemed quite out of place anyway, since it just discussed general psi theoretical models rather than offering info on the PEAR lab itself. I suppose there may be scope for restoring a sentence or two in the Jahn page, but prob not more. Tnx fr yr WP:BOLD-ness! jxm (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This was on my list. I will fix this article and add references I have quite a few. I will do it later today. Goblin Face (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Simon, your cause isn't in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view. I have plenty of evidence showing that you two aren't approaching this objectively at all. The PEAR article looks fine and neutral. It doesn't need any "touch-ups", unless of course you want to stick in some stuff from Robert Todd Carroll's website that can be refuted quite easily. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If the PEAR article looks fine now it's because I went and did a big revamp yesterday jxm did a big revamp a while ago. Some of that content ended up on Jahn and that's what I cleaned up. I've said this before but I'll say it again, please assume goodwill here. Believe it or not everybody on this noticeboard is dedicated to the Misplaced Pages project. The people who frequent this noticeboard also are working on a lot of articles that are A) at the periphery of the Misplaced Pages project and B) frequently problematic. And I've said this several times this week but if you believe POV doesn't agree with your perspective seek consensus. The people on the Parapsychology talk page have laid out for you repeatedly what we were looking for - so far you've been reticent to provide it. When you did provide what I asked for, a study I was not familiar with, I read it - and it wasn't a proof of PK - even the people at PEAR saw that in their rebuttal to it. Now I don't intend to argue with you further on that point as I don't believe anything good can come from it. If you have new sources for review that come from credible journals I'd be happy to look them over - if they are reliable and if their findings are included in a way that meets the criteria of Misplaced Pages I'll be all too happy to include them. So again, please, if you believe there is new evidence that vindicates your argument provide links, let us read it. Simonm223 (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"so far you've been reticent to provide it" No, I haven't. I addressed your problems with the study and found your counters lacking. "and it wasn't a proof of PK - even the people at PEAR saw that in their rebuttal to it." Their reply wasn't very objective. As said above, the sample sizes seem fine. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It was one person. Simonm223 (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And I acknowledged that. And I also pointed out to you how that person's effect was replicated, not a statistical fluke, not a result of sensory leakage (how you can even have that on an RNG test, I dunno), and worth further investigation. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

PhiChi all you are doing is trying to argue with various editors it's not helping the website. You have made no constructive edits or rational suggestions. Even on your own talk page several users have told you what the scientific consensus about parapsychology is and what the Misplaced Pages policies are relating to the area of pseudoscience and fringe theories and you have responded that you "disagree", you even claimed you disagree with the Arbitration Committee. The problem is that Misplaced Pages is not about your personal belief system it's about what the reliable references say and you don't have any of those to defend your case. You have openly admitted you disagree with the scientific literature that has been cited on Misplaced Pages about the subject... No matter what is said you are just going to keep arguing. I don't see anything good that can come out of this. Goblin Face (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Just keep misrepresenting my position and my communication with other people. I disagree with the scientific consensus is (actually, the scientific consensus is more divided than you think), and I don't have a "personal belief system", as I've clarified for you a thousand times over. I've provided reliable references from Psychological Bulletin (You: "But they were from Radin's website. So there."), and when I brought up the JSE paper, you and your friend went nuts and gave me fallacious arguments against their position. I showed you evidence of a gray area on parapsychology, and you ignored that too. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Critical or skeptical coverage needed

• Peter Fenwick (neuropsychologist)
• Sam Parnia

Both have published some fringe work on NDEs. Having difficulty finding reliable references for their claims. Goblin Face (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Parnia one didn't look that different from many other pages that had been edited by the marketing departments of hospitals to highlight the expertise of key staff. In other words, it was rife with WP:DUE violations such as a massive paragraph outlining his complaints regarding regulation of brain oxygenation technologies and such. Also a fair bit of WP:NPOV and an over-reliance on primary sources. I've cut back a lot of the chaff, it's not perfect but short of finding third party references to Parnia's work it's better than it was. Simonm223 (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I managed to find this , useful but old though from 2009 and does not discuss his recent 2013 study. Goblin Face (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution